Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffmotiontrademarkcommon lawmotion to dismiss

Related Cases

Kaisha v. Lotte Int’l Am. Corp., Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2016 WL 11811824

Facts

Ezaki Glico Ltd. and Ezaki Glico USA, engaged in marketing biscuit sticks under the brand name 'Pocky,' allege that Lotte Int'l Am. Corp. infringed on their trademarks by using similar product designs for their 'Pepero' cookies. Ezaki holds three registered trademarks for Pocky products and claims that Lotte's actions violate The Lanham Act and New Jersey common law. Lotte counterclaims with ten claims, including false advertising and unfair competition. Ezaki filed a motion to dismiss several of Lotte's counterclaims.

Ezaki alleges that Lotte infringed on the Pocky trademarks by adopting and using identical product designs to market its Pepero cookies in violation of The Lanham Act and New Jersey Common law.

Issue

Did Ezaki's statement on its website constitute actionable false advertising under the Lanham Act and related state laws?

Rule

To establish a claim for false advertising under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff must show that the representations at issue have a tendency to deceive a substantial portion of the intended audience. Puffery, which consists of vague and subjective claims, is not actionable under the law.

To state a claim for false advertising, a plaintiff must allege that the representations at issue has a 'tendency to deceive a substantial portion of the intended audience.'

Analysis

The court analyzed whether Ezaki's statement, 'get a mental boost,' could be considered actionable false advertising. It determined that the statement was vague and general, fitting the definition of puffery, as it did not provide specific or measurable claims about the product. The court noted that Lotte failed to demonstrate how the statement could mislead a reasonable consumer.

Conclusion

The court granted Ezaki's motion to dismiss Lotte's counterclaims, concluding that the statement in question was non-actionable puffery.

Who won?

Ezaki Glico Ltd. and Ezaki Glico USA prevailed in their motion to dismiss Lotte Int'l Am. Corp.'s counterclaims. The court found that Lotte's claims of false advertising were based on a statement that was deemed puffery, which is not actionable under the law. As a result, the court dismissed Counts 1 through 5 of Lotte's counterclaims and partially dismissed Counts 6 through 10.

Ezaki Glico Ltd. and Ezaki Glico USA prevailed in their motion to dismiss Lotte Int'l Am. Corp.'s counterclaims.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. LY USA, Inc., 676 F.3d 83, 102 U.S.P.Q.2d 1249

Wrenn v. Boy Scouts of America, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2008 WL 4792683, 89 U.S.P.Q.2d 1039

Wells Fargo & Co. v. ABD Ins. & Financial Services, Inc., 758 F.3d 1069, 2014-1 Trade Cases P 78,706, 14 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2189, 2014 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2549

Ty Inc. v. Softbelly’s Inc., 353 F.3d 528, 57 Fed.R.Serv.3d 637, 69 U.S.P.Q.2d 1213

Warnaco Inc. v. VF Corp., 844 F.Supp. 940